Contributors and beneficiaries. It's obvious: the five member states that called for Community spending stability for the next few years are “net contributors” to the EU budget. Those that provided the most robust response are the main beneficiaries of the most expensive European policy, cohesion policy. They are also the countries most affected by perspectives relating to the common agricultural policy (CAP) or the greatest beneficiaries of this policy. The majority of countries in the first group are compelled by the economic situation to put into practice national austerity programmes and consider that similar austerity should be respected at a Community level. There are clear differences between the different political forces in the Union and we witnessed this fact in the first debate on the subject at the European Parliament (EUROPE 10281) but certain positions are also partly determined by domestic considerations. Austerity policies have been sharply criticised by the chairman of the Socialist Group, which is in the opposition in his own country, and everyone is aware that in member states where the Socialists are the majority party, governments are applying austerity. We also know that Mr Zapatero and Mr Papandreou are doing their best to get their countries to respect the Maastricht criteria: it is difficult for the Socialist Group to criticise them. It is even more difficult for the EPP Group to condemn an initiative supported by Ms Merkel and Mr Sarkozy! The chairman of the EPP, Joseph Daul, directed his criticism towards the European policy of the British prime minister and announced that his group would oppose any attempt to undermine “the investment Europe needs”. Mr Lamassoure, the chair of the parliamentary budgets committee, was looking to the future (see below).
The positions of the “Five” partly diverge. The now famous letter of the Five is partly the result of a compromise. CAP funding is not under threat. France and Germany largely agreed on this point and the United Kingdom considers that its specific rebate will continue (for the others, this is not altogether certain). On the other hand, funding for cohesion policy will in practice be subject to a certain threshold and the sanctions imposed on member states that fail to respect the Stability Pact will primarily involve funding for this policy. European diplomatic service issues also created a number of misgivings among the Five. The divergences separating them will come to the fore at the time of the real negotiations because the United Kingdom, France and Germany are not on the same wavelength. Negotiations will therefore not involve a confrontation between the Five on the one side and the other member states on the other, but rather an overall debate in the spirit, it is hoped, advocated by Mr Lamassoure.
Commission and Parliament roles. The European Commission (due to its document, released at the end of June) and the European Parliament will play an essential role, as well the member states that have so far not spoken out, such as Italy, which will undoubtedly have something to say. It will be up to the Commission to prove that certain initiatives and accomplishments are more effective and less costly if they are carried out in common because they avoid waste and duplication of jobs. There will therefore not be any opposition between the two theses and there will be a much more coherent and structured debate, as advocated by Alain Lamassoure. I will quote from the conclusion of his communiqué, which was covered at length in EUROPE 10281: “The future of Europe cannot be decided in just a few hours by the supporters of a few countries but in the full light of day, transparently and democratically, following a genuine European debate, with all the different issues on the table and by involving all the parliaments in it, as well as the opinions expressed by the public in all Union countries”.
Keeping solidarity. There will not be any automatic accounting restraint, as demanded by the Five, which one commentator described as a stupid criterion. The European Commission will be able to prove that any euro spent wisely at a Union level involves a decrease in national spending and greater efficiency, and will subsequently benefit everyone. At the same time, certain waste and bad habits should be eradicated and the countries that have cheated will partly lose their funding. It appears obvious that criteria for good management have to be applied to funding for third countries as well. The concerns of Herman Van Rompuy and the warning he made should be heeded: he highlighted the fact that creating the EU's own resources involved the risk of reducing budget contributions based on the GDP of member states (EUROPE 10257) and undermining solidarity between rich and less rich EU countries, which goes in the opposite direction of the objectives sought. (F.R./transl.fl)